M/S. Pacl Limited v. The Competent Authority Cum

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 M/s.PACL Limited, through its authorized representative, A.Mohandoss, Having Ofice at 7th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Competent Authority cum District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Competent Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, 3.The Appropriate Authority, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell, CBI Head Quarters, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

1/4

4.J.B.J.City Development Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, 44/8, "C" Block, 7th Street, Anna Nagar East, ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.E2/039182/2012 dated 02.07.2015 and his consequential impugned notice dated 11.07.2015 and quash the same in respect of S.No.61, Samugarengapuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunleveli District.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. Notice need not be issued to R3 & R4. Issuance of notice to R3 & R4 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent bringing the petition mentioned properties to 2/4

auction sale. It is seen that the fourth respondent is a financial establishment and its depositors moved the Special Court for TNPID Act cases, Chennai. The Government had earlier attached the petition mentioned property and subsequently, the Special Court directed their sale. The impugned auction sale notice is pursuant to the direction of the Special Court. The impugned notice itself mentions that on 10.01.2014 in O.A.No.9 of 2013, the Special Court had issued direction. Thus, the impugned auction sale notice is only a consequential action. The petitioner ought to question the primary order passed by the Special Court. Without challenging the same, the petitioner cannot question the consequential order alone. Therefore, I am not in a position to interfere. Leaving open all the other rights and remedies of the writ petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi To 1.The Competent Authority cum District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Competent Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, 24.07.2023 4/4